A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

On February 20, 2013, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order for collection within the limit of KRW 89,1480,000 for the above construction cost and interest interest, on the basis of the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost against D’s victim in the Seoul Western District Court’s civil petition office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 105-1, 201.

However, the Defendant’s claim for the construction price against the victim D was terminated by withdrawal of the application for compulsory auction against IB, including Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government IBL 202 where the Defendant’s father and Ha were living with his father at the time, according to the content of the real estate transfer and takeover agreement written between the Defendant and the victim, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, deceiving the above court as if the claim for the construction price against the victim D already extinguished was still effective, applied for the seizure and collection order, but around that time, the above court rejected the Defendant’s application for the seizure and collection order, on the ground that “The Defendant had already transferred the claim for the construction price against the victim D to a third party and completed the notification of the transfer of the claim, and thus, cannot be deemed a legitimate obligee.”

The prosecutor stated in the indictment that "the defendant's application for the seizure and collection order of the defendant's claim was rejected on March 25, 2013 by the above court 98Gahap110254 ruling at the Seoul Central District Court on March 25, 2013, the above court 2008Gahap10454 ruling was finalized on May 7, 2009, thereby cancelling the execution clause granted to the defendant on the ground that the judgment on the case for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation to the defendant became final and conclusive on May 7, 2009." However, the identity of the charges is not undermined